[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10461-10464]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             AHMED CHALABI

  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Florida who knows 
much more about what I am going to mention today. He and I worked on 
what I am going to talk about for some time. And that is--there are 
reports coming in that the home and offices of Ahmed Chalabi were 
raided today in Baghdad.
  I do not have clear evidence yet as to whether they were raided by 
the Iraqi government or by the CPA, but both the Senator and I have 
been incredible skeptics of this administration's reliance on this 
fellow, Ahmed Chalabi, who has been indicted, tried, convicted, and 
sentenced in Jordan.
  For the last 2 years--although I have nothing personal against Mr. 
Ahmed Chalabi--I have been urging this administration, particularly the 
Secretary of Defense, the Vice President, and Mr. Wolfowitz: Do not put 
our eggs into Mr. Chalabi's basket.
  Mr. Chalabi is the President of the Iraqi National Congress. I was so 
concerned about this that my friend from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, and I 
were literally smuggled into northern Iraq about a month before the war 
began because we wanted to meet with the Barzani and Talibani clients 
in northern Iraq to determine what their attitude was, first, toward 
our invasion with Iraq--would they be with us? There were reports that 
they would have been, but we wanted to find out firsthand.
  And B, we wanted to find out whether Ahmed Chalabi spoke for them. 
The leaders of both those clans said: We want to make it clear that the 
INC does not speak for us. We did form the INC with him, but he is out 
for himself, not us.
  I could never quite understand the incredible preoccupation of the 
administration with Mr. Chalabi. I think that reliance has done us 
great damage in terms of establishing legitimacy.
  Today's raid comes on the heels of an announcement earlier this week 
that the Defense Department belatedly, after well over a year, has cut 
off the $340,000 monthly payment to the INC, headed by Mr. Chalabi.
  Last month, I wrote to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of 
Defense asking them to explain why we continue to pay Mr. Chalabi a 
monthly stipend. The action was seen as sort of putting our thumb on 
the scale--we say we want the Iraqis to decide their outcome, and here 
we are pouring into one man, an outfit, $340,000 a month.
  It is no secret Mr. Chalabi has long been the favorite of the 
Pentagon civilians and the Vice President, although the CIA, the 
uniformed military, and the State Department have been adamantly 
opposed to him.
  We recently had a meeting with the Secretary of Defense in a closed 
session, but I am allowed to say this in public, and I raised the 
question of funds to Chalabi and the phrase--well, I guess I cannot 
quote exactly what the phrase was. I cannot quote the Secretary. But 
the point is there has been a real difficulty in pushing back.
  It has been clear for some time our close association with Mr. 
Chalabi has damaged American interests in Iraq. Chalabi is the best 
known figure in the Iraqi Governing Council, according to a poll taken. 
We appointed him. By the way, a poll taken a couple of months ago in 
Iraq shows that he is not only the best known member of the Governing 
Council, but he is also the least popular, with a negative rating of 
over 60 percent.
  Chalabi, as my colleagues will recall, was flown in to southern Iraq 
literally

[[Page 10462]]

days before the statue of Saddam fell. It was actually during the war; 
he was flown in to a portion of southern Iraq we had already conquered 
and passed. He had been flown in without the knowledge of the State 
Department and other senior officials. I guess he was going to be the 
triumphant Shi'a who was going to march through the Shi'a territories 
heading up to Baghdad, except one thing, nobody liked him and nobody 
followed him.
  I do not know what it took to get the message to this administration 
that this guy was not helpful but this guy was hurting our legitimacy. 
At that time, I rose in the Senate and said, what are we doing here? I 
think my friend from Florida as well, if not here in the Senate, I know 
in our hearings, said, what are we doing this for? How are we saying we 
are liberating the Iraqis, we are going to let them choose their 
government and we are flying in a handpicked guy?
  Well, that sort of went south, figuratively speaking. It was clear we 
were attempting to put him in a place to take over the reins of 
Baghdad. Toward the end of that year, he organized the militia, which 
was implicated in instances of looting in Baghdad. The U.S. military 
wisely ordered the militia to disband, but there were some supporters 
here saying it is okay for him to set up a militia.
  We are trying to disband militias, and we wonder why we have so 
little legitimacy. This is not Monday-morning quarter-backing. If need 
be, for the record, I will come back and lay out all the statements we 
made 2 years ago about Mr. Chalabi, a year ago, 8 months ago, 10 months 
ago, as recently as a hearing 2 days ago in the Senate.
  It has done us serious damage. High-ranking civilians in the Defense 
Department continue to back Mr. Chalabi, despite numerous warnings 
about his past dealings.
  The King of Jordan made known his country's distaste for Mr. Chalabi. 
They did not hide it. The Foreign Minister of Jordan came to me 
personally and said, for God's sake, do not deal with this guy; do you 
not understand he is going to hurt you?
  Mr. Chalabi has been convicted on fraud charges stemming from a 
failure of the Petra Bank which Chalabi headed. In recent months, 
Chalabi has been moving closer and closer to the religious elements in 
Iraq, apparently belying his claims to be a secular leader. His close 
association with hardliners in Iran, including Ayatollah Khamenei, has 
been a matter of mystery and some suspicion, but we continued to 
support him.
  The reason for today's raid is not yet clear, although there were 
reports earlier this week that one of Chalabi's associates, the finance 
minister, is being investigated by Iraqi police for a scam involving 
government vehicles. There have been other reports of corruption 
allegations as well.
  I am not making a judgment on that at this moment. We will wait to 
see. But I am making a judgment, did make a judgment, and will continue 
to make the judgment that Mr. Chalabi is hurting us, not helping us.
  One other point; Mr. Chalabi's guys got in and got hold of a whole 
lot of intelligence data that was Saddam Hussein's. He refuses to give 
it to us. He refuses to turn it over to the U.S. military. He will let 
us see it but not keep it. And this is our guy. It is like our guy in 
Havana. You know, our guy?
  I do not know what it takes. It is like taking a wombat and banging 
it up the side of the heads of some of these guys and the civilians in 
the Defense Department.
  This guy is bad news for the United States, whether the reason for 
the raiding of his headquarters and his home relates to corruption or 
not. We have tarnished our reputation by our association with this man. 
It is time to begin recouping it by ending our efforts to foist an 
unpopular leader on Iraqis and supporting a process which will produce 
more legitimate leaders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I was going to address the 
topic, ``Are you safer than you were 4 years ago,'' but while we have 
the distinguished Senator from Delaware in the Chamber, I want to 
address a couple of issues with him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. The bottom line is it is a long time in coming. I hope 
this means we have listened to the sounds of voices in this 
administration. I say to my friend, we both know this: We have both 
tried to help this administration, but it is as though there is a San 
Andreas fault that runs down the middle of this administration, with 
two very different views of the world. One is held by Mr. Powell, the 
State Department, and the uniformed military, and the other being the 
Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and Mr. Wolfowitz, who are 
all fine, honorable, and decent men who have a very different view of 
the world.
  The view of their world which they have been promoting has turned out 
not to be so accurate. I hope this is evidence of the fact the 
President is starting to listen to saner voices.
  I facetiously said--nobody asked--if you had a baseball team and you 
had somebody who batted zero and it came time to put in a pinch-hitter, 
are you going to look at the batting averages? It is time to look at 
the batting averages, Mr. President. Listen to those folks in your 
administration. There are some very good ones who have better batting 
averages, and I hope this is beginning that recognition.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to posit a couple of 
questions to the distinguished immediate past chairman of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee. How much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida has 10 minutes.
  Is there objection to the unanimous consent request? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I did not hear the request.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I did not have a request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator wishes to pose questions to the 
other side.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I apologize. I thought something was said about 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. How much time is allocated to this side on 
morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic side has 22 minutes remaining.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Is it my understanding this Senator would have 
10 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Does that give the Senator from New York 
enough time?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Yes.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. All of my speech on ``are you better off now 
than you were 4 years ago,'' I am going to save for another day. I want 
to take advantage of one of the most knowledgeable Members of the 
Senate. In thinking about the question of are you better off now than 
you were 4 years ago, are you safer now than you were 4 years ago, I 
have had the privilege of sitting at the knee of the former chairman of 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has taught me something 
about two countries where we better keep a laser eye focused, namely 
Iran and North Korea.
  I ask the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, as I hold up this chart about suspected nuclear 
weapons in North Korea, are we safer now than we were 4 years ago?
  Mr. BIDEN. Clearly we are not. That is not to suggest you are 
suggesting it is not good Saddam is gone. I think we are, in a marginal 
sense, safer because he is gone. But I think the effect of what we have 
allowed to happen, or what has happened in the rest of the world, has 
literally put us in more jeopardy.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Then, Mr. President, indeed this is what the 
Senator from Delaware has constantly preached. He has been a Johnny-
one-note on how we ought to engage with other nations around this 
world, through diplomacy, to better the protection of the United 
States.

[[Page 10463]]

  Is it the impression of the Senator from Delaware we have been 
dragging our feet with regard to North Korea, before we ever started 
engaging them in international and one-to-one discussions?
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I say to my friend--I will make two points 
here. One is, it was not only the Senator from Delaware and Florida, 
but also the Senator from Indiana, the Republican chairman, who pointed 
out we made a mistake by dismissing the policy of engagement of the 
last administration. Even the Secretary of State of the United States 
of America, Mr. Powell, when Kim Dae Jong of South Korea came, said we 
were going to continue engaging the North as Mr. Kim wanted us to and 
thought we should, as our Japanese friends thought we should, and the 
President summarily stopped that. I think that was another mistake.
  I make another point about Iran. The neoconservative view of why we 
should have gone into Iraq alone is it would teach a lesson to the 
other malcontents in the world such as the Iranians. They were going to 
say, My God, look at the unilateral use of force; we better behave. I 
point out what my friend knows well and we talked about. Prior to our 
invasion of Iraq, Iran had a genuine democratic movement--not 
prowestern, democratic movement. It was the Majlis, their parliament, 
195 people. There was a genuine movement.
  You had the mullahs and the apparatus and the clerics who controlled 
security and controlled the intelligence apparatus, afraid of world 
opinion if they crushed that democratic movement.
  What did they do? If, in fact, the neocons are correct, and having 
140,000 troops in Iraq was going to teach Iran a lesson, in the midst 
of our greatest show of force in Iraq, the clerics in Tehran would have 
been afraid to touch the democratic movement, for fear of world 
reaction.
  Obviously they were not frightened by our show of force. There is no 
democratic movement left. For instead the clerics crushed it. They 
disbanded it.
  So that is another example of the two most dangerous states for the 
United States of America today if they spiral out of control--Iran and 
North Korea. Both present a greater threat to America today than they 
did 3 years ago.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I further ask the distinguished 
former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee with regard to 
nuclear weapons and the acquiring of nuclear technology and the ability 
to make a bomb in Iran, are we safer today than we were 4 years ago?
  Mr. BIDEN. As we both know, the details of that are classified, but 
we are allowed to say, and I give you my opinion, and I believe it 
would be the consensus of the intelligence community: No. We are not 
safer.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I further ask my friend from 
Delaware, given the fact of what we have heard in the testimony in the 
Foreign Relations Committee over the last week, and also in the Senate 
Armed Services Committee; given the fact my friend from Delaware and I 
have had long conversations about not only do we not need to pull out 
of Iraq but we need to increase our troop strength in Iraq because the 
alternative would be unthinkable, for us to turn tail and run and 
create a vacuum which would be filled by terrorists, which would only 
give succor and encouragement to the other radical elements in the 
region, including Iran, does the Senator from Delaware think we are 
safer now in our international diplomacy results than we were 4 years 
ago?
  Mr. BIDEN. No, we are not. But we could be if the President is 
willing to not stay the course but change the course. There is an 
opportunity, if the President begins to listen to the correct voices in 
his administration, to internationalize this, to bring in the major 
powers, to actually leave Iraq in December of 2005 with a 
representative government which will have a positive impact on the 
region over time. It is still possible, but the President must quickly 
call a summit meeting of the major powers; quickly get them to agree to 
sign off on Mr. Brahimi's plan of a new government; quickly get NATO to 
agree to have a NATO-led multinational force, sanctioned by the United 
Nations; and quickly, quickly demonstrate he understands the breadth 
and depth of the damage done by the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, bulldoze 
that prison down, build a hospital in its place, release those 
prisoners who should not be there and keep the others in a different 
environment and open it up. He still can do this. But my friend knows, 
we can't do it. Only one man, because of the majesty of his office, can 
do it: the President of the United States. He can do it. I hope he does 
not squander this last opportunity. I am hopeful he will not.
  I believe he understands more now. I hope he begins to listen to the 
uniform military and Mr. Powell, what they have been counseling along 
with you and I and Senators Lugar, Hagel, McCain, and others all along 
here. There is still time. But I believe this is the last serious 
chance he has to get it right by June 30.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I certainly agree with the 
Senator from Delaware. I will ask a final question of him. Why does the 
Senator from Delaware, one of the most knowledgeable in this entire 
body on international affairs----
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank my friend.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Why, in his opinion, does the administration 
continue to resist the outreach of building consensus in the 
international community, to help us with problems such as Iraq and Iran 
and North Korea? Why is there resistance to that, I ask the Senator 
from Delaware?
  Mr. BIDEN. First of all, I thank the Senator for his compliments that 
are excessive and not accurate, but I thank him nonetheless. But let me 
say in a second, I took the time 4 years ago to ask my senior staff to 
go back and get every major work written by the Straussians, the 
neocons, I mean it sincerely, and Tony Blinken, former National 
Security Agency, my chief guy, got together 11 or 12 books, the most 
seminal volumes written in the last decade by the neoconservatives. 
These are honorable, bright, serious people--patriotic Americans.
  If you read what they say, they mean what they say. What they say is 
the value of America----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent it be charged to our 
time and that we have 1 additional minute so the Senator can finish his 
answer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. The bottom line is the neoconservatives believe our power 
is enhanced by leveraging power. Meaning if we go alone without any 
help, the malcontents of the world go: Oh, my God, look at them, they 
don't even listen to the rest of the world. They have this awesome 
power. We should listen to them.
  It might work if we had an army of 12 million and a surplus of $500 
billion a year instead of an army that is one-twelfth and a deficit of 
$500 billion a year. It doesn't work.
  Now ideology has run head on into reality. For ideologues, like all 
honorable people, it is difficult to change. It is a little like me as 
a practicing Roman Catholic denying the Trinity. You can't deny the 
Trinity and be a Catholic. It is not possible. They cannot acknowledge 
they need the international community and stick to a thesis that has 
been theirs for the last 12 years. That is as quickly, succinctly, and 
as accurately as I can state it. As Samuel Clemens said: All 
generalities are false, including this one. I made a bit of a 
generalization, but I believe an accurate one.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, what we have gotten in a few 
minutes is a short course of what, in the opinion of this Senator from 
Delaware, and in the opinion of this Senator from Florida, we need to 
do: Internationalize the effort, build a consensus, reach out, bring in 
an international force such as NATO, led by the American military, 
bring in a senior international diplomat, prepare Iraq for governing 
itself, and be prepared to be there for the long haul.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page 10464]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

                          ____________________